Mitchell V. Oregon Court Case Summary

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The court case of the United States v. Morrison seemed to be an unfair case in favor of the men convicted of rape. The United States v. Morrison case was a United States Supreme Court decision, which held that parts of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The USC passed the VAWA that contained a provision (42 USC) that protected victims of gender-based violence, even if no charges had been filed against the criminal. In 1994 at Virginia tech, Christy Brzonkala claimed she was raped by two of her fellow classmates, Antonio Morrison, and James Crawford. During the first hearing of the case, Morrison admitted to having sexual

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

As the case went through the 2nd and 9th circuit courts, the decision was made in favor of Wiley. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court which voted in favor of Kirtsaeng.

The Parties involved: Peter O. Mattei (Appellant) vs. Amelia F. Hopper (Respondent) Counselors: Jay R. Martin and William F. Sharon (Counselors for Appellant.) Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold, George R. Gordon, John L. Garaventa and Dean Ormsby (Counselors for Respondent). Mattei is a real estate developer who was planning to build a shopping center on land that was owned by Hopper. Mattei approached Hopper, the owner of said property with an offer of $57,000, which both parties agreed on.

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

In the midst of the Lochner era, many men, women, and children were forced to work long hours with minimal pay. The national government struck down state laws that standardized work regulation in order to promote a free economy. However, a new work precedent was set when Muller v. Oregon was decided upon. In Muller v. Oregon, Justice Josiah Brewer, along with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court, decided to enforce a labor law on the basis of sex. Curt Muller was fined for forcing a woman to work more than ten hours and the Supreme Court upheld the charge because women are perceived as physically weaker than males at the time. (Brewer 82). This case used the hegemonic idea of the male patriarch in order to support the usage of labor

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide? Why?

2. Describe briefly the history of the litigation of this case (which courts heard the case, which way did they rule, what court is now deciding the case, which judges are hearing the case in this court)?